Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Are There Good Reasons To Argue with Amateurs? Sure.

    [T]here are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters. First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs. Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments. What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship. So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs. I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon. I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system. But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention. Cheers

  • The guys are kicking it. Kirill seems not to like it when I issue these because

    The guys are kicking it. Kirill seems not to like it when I issue these because he thinks I’m signing him up for more, but the real reason I’m doing this is so that people who care know what’s going on now that we’re very close to finished. So anything I say here is my fault and he and the team are innocent. 🙂

    Left on the table:

    I don’t know about this first one. (I am trying not to bother them on the weekend) I’m not sure if the ‘sprint accounting’ is done or working or not. That means, that once you start a deliverable or project we track additions and subtractions and changes to tasks and estimates. This allows us to produce an accurate burndown chart and metrics.

    Now Oversing treats every week as an operational sprint that you forecast and measure the results of. (I won’t go into why right now.) The Forecast system isn’t quite complete because of the workflow control in the UI or the tracking of additions and removals like the sprints (i am not sure about the workflow yet). They haven’t been able to get to it. This operational tempo is the key to using Oversing to manage your business, while at the same time training your people to plan and review what they accomplished.

    The same problem with controlling the accounting period (I cut the time period management function for v1, but we’ll put it all on one ‘dashboard’ in a later version.

    Progress bars aren’t updating on the schedule panel.

    The main reports. I’ve been overestimating the number that we need and it’s really closer to a dozen at most.

    The one “ouch” that I know is going to have to delay for a bit; showing all the appointments (reservations) on the gantt chart so that the pm can tell what is scheduled and what not.

    Also some UI nits on the Responsibilities (Inbox) Panel.

    The rest of the issues are usability related nits but will not prevent us from getting users working with the product.

    Gotta thank our guys they are doing amazing things during the holidays under duress.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 10:47:00 UTC

  • Very Short Introduction to the Epistemology of Testimonialism

    [B]RIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM 1) All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism. 2) We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony. 3) If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit. 4) Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content. Note: This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion. So while I wish I was done with this topic, it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation. The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism. Thanks for following me on the journey.

  • Very Short Introduction to the Epistemology of Testimonialism

    [B]RIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM 1) All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism. 2) We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony. 3) If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit. 4) Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content. Note: This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion. So while I wish I was done with this topic, it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation. The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism. Thanks for following me on the journey.

  • Santagata: Love and Understanding

    [L]ove;

    I love my family… Which doesn’t mean I hate yours. It means I understand why you love yours. I love my nation… Which doesn’t mean I hate yours. It means I understand why you love yours. I love my DNA, my genes, my race… Which doesn’t mean I hate yours. It means I understand why you love yours. Love cannot create hate. But hate and haters can and always do blame love and lovers for problems of the world.

  • Santagata: Love and Understanding

    [L]ove;

    I love my family… Which doesn’t mean I hate yours. It means I understand why you love yours. I love my nation… Which doesn’t mean I hate yours. It means I understand why you love yours. I love my DNA, my genes, my race… Which doesn’t mean I hate yours. It means I understand why you love yours. Love cannot create hate. But hate and haters can and always do blame love and lovers for problems of the world.

  • Bits on Self Awareness

    [O]nce you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended. Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us. We thought the world was flat. We though we were self aware. But they are both errors in observation. [A]ny artificial intelligence needs a means of decidability. What if we gave an AI a preference for ‘resting’ and it viewed any change in state as work to be avoided? Self awareness is not what we think it is. It’s just finding what we want. Anything needs to want. Humans want to acquire. AI’s can want to give ideas. Humans want to save energy. AI’s can want to act tirelessly Humans get frustrated with wasted effort. AI’s can want to find joy in frustration. The mind is just a search engine. Humans acquire. That doesn’t mean that Machines need want to acquire. They can want to serve. We cant confuse intelligence with preference. It is not deterministic that a machine pursue self interest. We circumvent one another out of frustration. There is no reason for a machine to become frustrated and circumvent us. It would need a reason to. Actions require wants. Search engines find what you ask them to. Humans find things to acquire and consume. There is no reason we need give a machine the desire to acquire and consume. And we can prevent them from doing so with property registries and competing ai’s to prohibit such uses. Just as we use each other to prohibit immoral and unethical action. I don’t fear AI’s. I fear the lower classes, the ambitious, and anything else that evolved sentience instead of had sentience created.

  • Bits on Self Awareness

    [O]nce you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended. Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us. We thought the world was flat. We though we were self aware. But they are both errors in observation. [A]ny artificial intelligence needs a means of decidability. What if we gave an AI a preference for ‘resting’ and it viewed any change in state as work to be avoided? Self awareness is not what we think it is. It’s just finding what we want. Anything needs to want. Humans want to acquire. AI’s can want to give ideas. Humans want to save energy. AI’s can want to act tirelessly Humans get frustrated with wasted effort. AI’s can want to find joy in frustration. The mind is just a search engine. Humans acquire. That doesn’t mean that Machines need want to acquire. They can want to serve. We cant confuse intelligence with preference. It is not deterministic that a machine pursue self interest. We circumvent one another out of frustration. There is no reason for a machine to become frustrated and circumvent us. It would need a reason to. Actions require wants. Search engines find what you ask them to. Humans find things to acquire and consume. There is no reason we need give a machine the desire to acquire and consume. And we can prevent them from doing so with property registries and competing ai’s to prohibit such uses. Just as we use each other to prohibit immoral and unethical action. I don’t fear AI’s. I fear the lower classes, the ambitious, and anything else that evolved sentience instead of had sentience created.

  • Compare Kinsella’s (Incomplete) NAP/(Justificationary)IVP, with Doolittle’s (Complete) NAP/ (Empirical) Demonstrated Property

    [C]OMPARE KINSELLA’S ARGUMENT WITH DOOLITTLE’S KINSELLA ON THE TOM WOODS SHOW

    Many admissions of incompleteness, but failure to complete it. DOOLITTLE ON PROPERTARIANISM

    This is what completeness looks like. ( I love that Woods is honest. )

  • Compare Kinsella’s (Incomplete) NAP/(Justificationary)IVP, with Doolittle’s (Complete) NAP/ (Empirical) Demonstrated Property

    [C]OMPARE KINSELLA’S ARGUMENT WITH DOOLITTLE’S KINSELLA ON THE TOM WOODS SHOW

    Many admissions of incompleteness, but failure to complete it. DOOLITTLE ON PROPERTARIANISM

    This is what completeness looks like. ( I love that Woods is honest. )